同语是一种普遍存在的语言现象和多学科共同关注的课题。在表面看来并不传达意义的同语在言语交际过程中能传达丰富的语用义。这些语用义可以在新认知语用学(关联理论[RT]和认知语言学[CL]的整合模式)的框架下得到合理解释。研究表明:在同语的理解方面,RT的模型理论可以解释同语的三种语境效果,包括语境假设的增强、完全冲突和部分冲突;在同语的生成方面,CL能够合理解释同语的使用动因。RT和CL优势互补,可以更加深入和全面地揭示同语的认知机制和语用功能。
Tautologies are ubiquitous and attracting attention from a wide range of disciplines. This seemingly meaningless construction can be used to convey a variety of pragmatic meanings which can be properly explained by neo-cognitive pragmatics, a theoretical model integrating insights from both relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. The comprehension of tautology, just like the comprehension of any other linguistic expressions or ostensive stimulus in general, is guided by the pursuit of optimal relevance. It is argued in this paper that through the marked construction of tautology, addresser intends to invoke some contextual effects in addressee, including strengthening, contradicting or partially contradicting contextual consumptions. And this process can be more specifically characterized by the notion of cognitive model in cognitive linguistics. It is also proposed that the main motivation of using tautology lies in its capability of cultivating intimacy between addresser and addressee.
Builhof, J. & S. Gimbel. 2004. A tautology is a tautology (or is it?) [J]. Journal of Pragmatics (36): 1003-05.
Fiske, S. T. 2004. Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology [M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibbs, R. R. & N. S. McCarrell, 1990. Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies [J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 125-45.
Meibauer, J. 2008. Tautology as presumptive meaning [J]. Pragmatics and Cognition 16(3): 440-70.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic books.
Macrae, C, N., C. Stangor & M. Hewstone. 1996. Stereotypes and Stereotyping [M]. New York: Guilford.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
陈新仁.2011.新认知语用学——认知语言学视野中的认知语用研究[J].外语学刊(9):40-44.
范振强.2014.同语的双重指称及其实现:从语言哲学到体验哲学[J].江汉学术(5):101-07.
范振强.2015.同语式“N是N”的理解机制新探:动态范畴构建视角[J].外语教学(4):28-33.
姜晖.2013.XBEY结构意义形成的认知语义阐释[J].外语与外语教学(2):56-59.
何自然、冉永平.2009.新编语用学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
李小飞、范振强.2010.具身哲学视域下的范畴动态构建观[J].山东社会科学(12):113-16.
刘正光.2005.非理想的语言事实在理论建设中的地位与作用——“同义反复”的非范畴化理论解释[J].现代外语(2):111-21.
吕平.2009.别让粽子变了“味”[N].钱江晚报(05-29):A5.
马文、范振强.2007.名词性同义反复语的多视角研究[J].贵州大学学报(社会科学版)(1):103-09.
苗兴伟.2011.关联理论对语篇连贯性的解释力[A].吴炳章、徐盛桓.认知语用学研究[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.223-33.
冉永平.2012.词汇语用新探[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
邵敬敏.1986.同语式探讨[J].语文研究(1):13-19.
王寅.2007.认知语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2013.新认知语用学——语言的认知社会研究取向[J].外语与外语教学(1):1-4.
于林龙.2012.隐喻思维与意义的不确定性[J].东北师范大学学报(6):108-111.
张炼强.2012.“X是X”的语言和逻辑综合探究[A].张炼强.修辞认知理论与实践[C].北京:首都师范大学出版社.302-55.
